User talk:Whistling42

Welcome

Hello Whistling42, and welcome to Wikipedia! We're really glad you've chosen to sign up for an account; it offers numerous benefits in case you weren't already aware of them.

Thankyou for your contributions if you've been editing before you got this message. If you haven't, don't worry: there are numerous ways you can contribute to Wikipedia if you're not sure where to start yet. Either way, we hope you'll like the place and decide to stay. We all remember what it's like to be new, so don't let others scare you off.

Useful links

Here's some useful links that will help you get started.

•   Wikipedia:How to edit a page - it's a lot easier than you might think.

•   Tutorial - a collection of pages explaining the most important things for contributing to Wikipedia.

•   Sandbox - the best place for trying things out. If previous edits you made to articles have been reverted because they were experimental or unconstructive, this is the place to make test edits.

•   Wikipedia:Where to ask a question - Wikipedia has numerous places for you to put your questions and comments forward.

•   Wikipedia:Five pillars - Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are summarized here.

•   Wikipedia:Manual of Style - our style guide outlines our standards for ensuring that we present information in a consistent manner that promotes cohesion and professionalism.

Contributing

With these references at hand, we hope you find it easier to contribute to Wikipedia. Here's a brief synopsis of some ways you can:

• We obviously wouldn't have an encyclopedia without articles. This page shows how you can help them grow.

• Removing vandalism and keeping the integrity of articles intact is a great way of contributing. More information on how to do so can be found here.

• Fixing typos, correcting poor grammar and repairing broken links are just some examples of useful, behind the scenes contributions. Even just making things look nice makes using Wikipedia more pleasant for everybody.

• If you like working with images, you might be interested in the Graphic Lab. Similarly, this page shows you how to work with images in Wikipedia articles.

• This page lists the many types of tasks you can do to maintain Wikipedia.

• There are numerous WikiProjects that aim to provide coordination and collaboration on particular subjects. From this list, you can join a project and contribute within an area that interests you.

Of course, there are many ways of contributing, but I hope that this message is helpful to you, and that you'll enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to do so. You can respond to this message by clicking here if you have a comment or need help - don't forget to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and write your query there. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! WilliamH (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Lately, I don't have the time to write the prosaic contributions I'd like to develop articles with, but welcoming users and doing other simple behind-the-scenes work here is actually a refreshing break when I need to take a breather from academical stuff. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mankind Project Jihad

So what is the deal with the sudden flurry of activity on Mankind Project? Are you part of a Texas legal team or something? WP:GF is to assume you understand WP:COI as well as consistent use of WP:RS, WP:Weasel and WP:NOR. Rorybowman (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll thank you to refrain from using such offensive terminology in the future. It isn't clear exactly what you are asking. If there is some specific answer you seek, ask in civil way, without making personal attacks. Whistling42 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem inordinately familiar with and concerned with the Scinto lawsuit. If you feel that it is WP:N perhaps it would be more fruitful to do an article on that or consolidate it into the "Criticisms" section. In the past, pro-MKP videos/blogs/fora have been disallowed under WP:V and your edits seem to have removed other criticisms raised by the Scinto case (such as practicing therapy without a license, recruitment out of AA, recent sobriety or unresolved addiction as a counter-indicator) from the article. While I appreciate your excellent WP:OR and conjecture regarding the possible relevance of Patti Henry's comments to the Scinto lawsuit, I'm not certain that it speaks well to your ability to maintain NPOV or avoid WP:COI. I would encourage you to consider these, toward the goal of being a better editor should you decide to stay. Rorybowman (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given what seems to be your strong interest and knowledge of the Scinto lawsuit against MKP Houston, perhaps it would be most fruitful to create a separate article on this case as was done with Lisa McPherson. Rorybowman (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Help talk:Sorting

I made the change, and replied at Help talk:Sorting. Regards, —EncMstr (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I mentioned this at Talk:cervical cap, but wanted to drop you a line here, too. I've requested mediation of our dispute on the "cervical cap" article. I'm sure both of us are frustrated at our slow progress on the talk page. I hope you will agree to the mediation; I believe it would be a big help in working through the issues we currently have. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cervical cap mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cervical cap, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cervical cap. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wording of conversion therapy article

You wrote in the conversion therapy article, 'Warren Throckmorton distinguishes methods that he considers to be "reparative therapy" from his own method, which he refers to as Sexual Identity Therapy.' This wording is totally unacceptable. Do not use it or anything like it in future. It is not Throckmorton, but the reparative therapists themselves, who consider their methods to be "reparative therapy." The article has to make this perfectly clear. Skoojal (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Sexology Topics

Whistling42, you may note that the List of Sexology Topics article includes a note saying, 'Note that this list includes many synonyms, for example English, Latin and slang terms for the same thing -- this is intentional, please do not remove these.' Your argument that conversion therapy and reparative therapy mean the same thing is not correct, but even if it were correct, it would still have been wrong of you to remove the mention of reparative therapy. Why did you ignore that note? Skoojal (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments

Whistling42, if in future you want to discuss the contents of the articles about NARTH and Joseph Nicolosi, then I suggest you discuss them on the relevant talk pages, not on the talk page of an entirely different article (albeit one about a related subject). I hope you don't find this question offensive, but have you read any of Nicolosi's books? Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality may not be your cup of tea, but reading it should resolve anyone's doubts that 'reparative therapy' is used as the name of a specific kind of therapy that is used to try to change people's sexual orientation. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronouns

Wait, what do you want people to refer to you as? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet has grossly misrepresented the issue. Nowhere did I demand to be called "ze", as Jaysweet claimed in closing the Wikiquette alert. All I asked is for Skoojal to stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. That is all. Whistling42 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the wikilert as well. My question wasn't rhetorical. What term is acceptable, or are you simply requesting no one ever use a pronoun when talking about you? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that no one should use a gendered pronoun when referring to me. I prefer ze/hir, but many people become hostile and rude when you request such usage, claiming things like "you object to the use of the English language" as Jaysweet did here. Thus, in this hostile atmosphere, I leave it up to the individual as to whether to use a gender-neutral pronoun, singular they or no pronoun. "It", however, remains wholly inappropriate. Whistling42 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I stand firmly by that claim. If you want to work towards gradual reform of the English language, I encourage you to do so. And hey, maybe someday in the future, gender neutral pronouns will become the norm and it will seem quanitly sexist to hear ol' Grandpa Jay still referring to his hir grandchildren by "him" and "her".

But in 2008, it is not reasonable to expect other people to do so. It would indeed be a "hostile atmosphere" if I told you to stop saying "ze/hir". However, it is not at all hostile for me to say that it is acceptable for other people to refer to you in the most gender-neutral manner allowed by their native language (without abandoning pronouns altogether, which is somewhat impractical). --Jaysweet (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Please point out exactly where I requested anyone to use a neologism. All I have been able to find is repeated, civil requests for individuals to refrain from using gendered pronouns to describe me.
2. You said: it is not at all hostile for me to say that it is acceptable for other people to refer to you in the most gender-neutral manner allowed by their native language (without abandoning pronouns altogether, which is somewhat impractical)." -- If, by this, you mean to say that "he or she" is appropriate, we have a problem on our hands. Is that what you meant? Whistling42 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that "he or she" is acceptable. Now, I personally will not refer to you as "he or she" -- if I need to refer to you in the third person, I will just avoid pronouns altogether. However, this is my personal choice to abide by your request. I am not going to tell other editors they have to abide by your request, because I don't think it is covered by WP:CIV or any other Wikipedia policies. A reasonable person in 2008 would not find it uncivil to refer to a person of unknown gender as "he or she", so I cannot call it uncivil. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is grossly inappropriate to refer to someone with the phrase "he or she", when they have specifically requested to be referred to with neither he nor she. The Genderqueer article may give you some concepts to work with. Also, you could familiarize yourself with MOS:IDENTITY; bullet two. Whistling42 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY refers to articles, and in any case, I don't see how it supports your contention whatsoever.

I am sympathetic to your point about not having an identification with either gender (and therefore "he or she" being arguably inappropriate) but I still don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:CIV to say that people can't refer to you as "he or she", and you're going to have an awfully hard time convincing me otherwise. Anyway, you don't really need to convince me, because I have already said that I will personally honor your request, and since I am not an admin there's not much I could do either way to enforce your request. But, if somebody asks, I'm certainly not going to say it's uncivil... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't see how it applies? "A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life...": i.e. use the pronoun they want you to use.

You find it civil for editors to use a phrase comprised of known-to-be-inappropriate pronouns to describe me. Would you find it equally civil if editors were to be given the green light to use phrases comprised of known-to-be-inappropriate pronouns to refer to you? "I was talking with Jaysweet, and she/ze told me about this book..." Whistling42 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see how it applies, because the MOS entry was talking about the choice between he vs. she, not about a universe of possible choices. I recognize you are trying to get away from the binary mentality, and to a certain extent I understand and respect that. But the MOS is talking about guidelines for articles written in English, and unfortunately English does not (currently) support anything outside the binary mentality.

As far as your analogy, well, heh, first of all it really wouldn't bother me all that much. But anyway, that's not the point: The point is that referring to a male with a female pronoun would be generally recognized as incivil in 2008 society, whereas -- and I am not advocating this, I am just stating reality -- using "he or she" to refer to a person who does not identify with either gender is not generally recognized as incivil in 2008 society. Them's the breaks, you know? As I've said, the best I can promise is that I won't refer to you that way, but I can't make other people stop based on Wikipedia policies... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I think you could pretty safely refer to anyone you want as "ze/hir" and not get dinged for incivility. I may not like how "ze" sounds, but if you refer to me as "ze" I would not take offense, nor do I think that if I did take offense that the community would support me in that. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this inspired my wife and I (or should I say, "my spouse and I"? heh) to discuss which of the proposed neologisms we like the best. She likes "tey/tem" the best, which I think is alright, but I think I slightly prefer "ve/vis". heh... anyway, she had an interesting comment: What it will really take for anything like this to catch on is that a publication like the NY Times has to make an editorial decision that they will start using a particular gender-neutral pronoun. I could actually see NYT doing this at some point... heh, if they do, I hope they choose a good one! I really can't stand a few of the proposed neologisms. hahaha ;)

Anyway, really, I'm like half on your side. I think it totally sucks that English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect to enact language reform via Wikipedia's civility policy.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, are you still under the impression that I requested that editors use neologisms? Would you take a moment to look through our discussions and point out where I tried to do that? I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that I am "expecting to enact language reform". All I am asking for is accuracy: and "he or she" is not accurate.

I am glad that you and your partner are discussing gender-neutral phrasing. "Ze/hir" and "ze/zir" are probably the most popular. I agree that the NYT would be a great venue, but even more so, if Facebook were to start allowing it, then it would take hold in the young, neuroplastic generation, and things would really change fast. Whistling42 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you did not request people to use neologisms. However, singular "they" is grammatically incorrect (even though I use it on occasion) and I think it's a little excessive to demand that people avoid the use of pronouns altogether (after all, there is a reason pronouns exist in every single human language ever...). So if you forbid he/she, and we rule out neologisms, the remaining choices are not particularly palatable.

It's too bad (for me) that ze/hir is so popular because I can't stand it ;) No offense intended, I just think that "hir" sucks because it's phonetically equivalent to "her" so you are just creating more confusion, and I don't like how "ze" sounds to my ear (I really believe this is not due to lack of familiarity, as I don't have that problem with "ve" or "tey"). --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I find "unpalatable" is your expectation that every genderqueer/gender variant/gender-non-conforming person should accept the premise that people like them cannot and will not fit into society. You are basically suggesting that even though there are ways that we can include such people in our language, that no one should be made to do so; that it is "wrong" to do so because the rules told us so. Are you familiar with how high the suicide and depression rates are for queer youth? Why do you think that is? "You don't exist" is just as harmful as "you're bad", and today you have had a small part in perpetuating the idea that genderqueer people should not be afforded a place in our society, in our lexicon, in our shared concepts of the world. You hold up "proper English" as your excuse without thinking about the people you are hurting. You claim that demanding fair recognition is "excessive" and "unreasonable". You claim to be on my side yet you defend the rules as though rules never change. Whistling42 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this discussion by way of the LGBT talk page. I have to say, with decades of experience being a really out homo, that if you take such grave offense at this display of confusion over the most basic English rules, that this can only have a detrimental effect on your health. I'm not saying that you should put up with discrimination, but neither do I believe this is it. That, however, is a relative matter, clearly. I've been mistaken for male since I was a young sprite, and found it useless to cause a fuss over it, mainly because it stresses me out to the point that it's no longer worth it. I also think you have to decide how much of an agenda you want to push with the reform of these gender-neutral pronouns and weigh that with what you would like to achieve, not just here at Wikipedia, but life in general. People who don't know you will continue to refer to you using gender-specific pronouns because they're used to them. I find this similar to the alternate feminist spelling of "womyn" that I never took to. However, the people who matter to you will care enough to respect your wishes. If you deny them the opportunity to get to know you because you focus on their use of pronouns, an unfortunately low number of people will get the pleasure of learning why it's so important to you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Edit My Comments

Whistling42, on the conversion therapy talk page recently you edited my comments. Don't do that. It is outrageous, since it represents me as saying something that I did not say. I do not accept your attempts at redefining the English language, and will never agree to them. I will undo your changes, and I expect you not to reverse that. Please be aware that edit warring to change someone else's comments is an extremely foolish thing to do. Skoojal (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Disputed tag

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article, and adding anything from the previous version back in would violate that. Please resolve the dispute on the talk page of the article first. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop Editing My Comments Immediately

Despite my strong suggestion that you cease this behaviour immediately, you are continuing to modify my comments. Stop. What you are doing is extremely foolish. I will never accept your editing of my comments. It is very poor behaviour indeed to insist that others respect you while doing something that shows a lack of respect for others. Skoojal (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning

I, and others, have been patient with your views and have tried to discuss recent pronoun usages reasonably. That does not mean that you get to go around accusing others of "sexual harassment"-- a very serious accusation --for simply using pronouns that you don't like. You have yet to make a case as to how this is sexually harassing, and in Skoojal's case, I don't see anything done as harassment. Don't edit others talk page comments and don't make loose accusations of sexual harassment. Beyond anything I have seen anyone do to you, your recent actions are borderline personal attacks and you should be wary of such when trying to collaborate on such a project as Wikipedia, where we don't all get to make up rules as we go along. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Applying inappropriate gendered pronouns is a form of sexual harassment. I am allowed to edit others Talk page comments per WP:TPG, to remove incivility and personal attacks, which it is increasingly obvious that these are. Whistling42 (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My getting your gender wrong (if that is what I did) is neither incivility nor a personal attack. It is an error, and that is all. Your editing of my comments is outrageous and I will never accept it. Skoojal (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec x3) I had a long post about this, but Gwynand puts it nicely. It's not sexual harassment to refer to you using a pronoun. More or less in an online environment, you're by default a "he" and then a "she" if you clarify. No one is going to to use a made-up pronoun to address you. If you don't want to reveal your gender, then that's fine and you'll be referred to as a "he". If you want to be known as a "she", then say so and people you collaborate with will catch on as time goes on. Trying to set arbitrary standards on others doesn't work, especially in an online environment and attempts to construe this as "sexual harassment" are plain silly. Do note that continuing to refactor others talk page comments is not acceptable, and further edit warring may lead to a block for disruptive editing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This contains many errors. Skoojal is insisting on using female pronouns to describe me despite my initially polite notifications to the contrary. Skoojal is not "defaulting to male" and then "correcting to female" in the way you describe. I first politely requested that they stop, and then 11 minutes later they went ahead and did it again. Clearly this is incivility. Per WP:TPG, I am entitled to remove incivility from Talk pages. Skoojal's initial complaint that the refactoring made it look as though S said something S had not said was resolved with an edit note; where I noted what I had removed and why. Whistling42 (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Then be referred to as a "he". That's the best you're going to get. No one is going to obey arbitrary standards that you've set on their conduct. Seriously, this is a really, really lame reason to edit war with others on. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, these "standards" are absolutely not arbitrary. Your willingness to be dismissive and rude ("lame"? really?) reflects only on you. Whistling42 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's arbitrary. No one but you depends this of others. And it's "lame" because you're throwing this entire issue way out of proportion. If an editor who had never met you before referred to you as a "he", would you immediately change their post because you feel it's "sexual harassment"? That and "sexual harassment" is a very serious term to throw at others, which is not helping the situation. Just deal with it. I'm sorry if you feel it constitutes harassment, but you're expecting others to interact with you in a manner that they wouldn't with any other user. It's one thing for this isolated discussion, but if you want to continue to interact with others on Wikipedia (or on any online community for that matter), then you should expect people to refer to you using gender-specific pronouns. In any case, you're getting off-topic from the issues at Talk:Conversion therapy, and I would like your assurance that you will stop edit-warring so I can unprotect the page and you and Skoojal and continue discussing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Right, but listen, it's not going to be repeatedly explained to you that a blanket request to never have gender pronouns used when describing you will not be honored. You don't want to be call "he" or "she" or "he or she". That doesn't make it a personal attack for a user to pick one. You've been warned by myself and Sephiroth regarding altering others talk page messages. I hope this doesn't upset you, but "personal attacks" aren't simply whatever we happen to think they are, they need to have a much stronger basis and community agreement that such a thing is an attack, neither of which you are going to find in this situation. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to be called "he" or "she" or "he or she", because these phrases are all inappropriate and inaccurate. Your unwillingness to respect or acknowledge solidarity with non-standard gender identities reflects very poorly on you as a person. Whistling42 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and I won't refer to you as any of those things. Just don't continue to edit others talk page comments for such a reason. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to refrain from using inappropriate pronouns. It is the right thing to do. However, I'm afraid I cannot agree to not editing Talk page comments to remove incivility; the community standards at which we arrive at WP:TPG indicate that this is an acceptable way to edit. I am perfectly willing to bold-italic wherever I do so, to indicate clearly that the initial comment has been changed, and thus avoid any confusion about whose words are whose. At this point, it should be very clear to everyone

Again, I am not making rigid requirements as to which way people choose to interact with me. I am not, nor have I ever demanded that others use a neologism, as both Jaysweet and Sephiroth have now inaccurately characterized me. Editors are free to use gender neutral pronouns (excluding "it") or singular they as pronouns, or they can use my username, or my username's initial, thus avoiding the pronoun issue altogether. I feel that being willing to compromise with this breadth of options is more than generous. Whistling42 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Please continue the discussion here. Whistling42 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept your editing my comments. Clear enough? You wrote above that, 'Skoojal is insisting on using female pronouns to describe me despite my initially polite notifications to the contrary.' This is wrong. I am not insisting on refering to you as she; I am insisting that past comments of mine that contain this term not be altered by you. I have to ask why you are making such a tremendous issue of this rather than debating the more important issues on the conversion therapy talk page?Skoojal (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You made the comment in question, using a gendered pronoun for me, eleven minutes after I notified you politely that you should not do that. You had the gall to describe it as an "innocent mistake", then attempted to shift the blame to me in a subsequent comment. News flash: civility is required, and editors are entitled to edit uncivil remarks. The action I took is protected; the action you took is prohibited. You are "making a tremendous issue" of defending your supposed "right" to allow your deliberately inflammatory words to remain, destroying whatever accord we could have reached in the process. I sense that you will continue to try to blame me, rather than admit any wrongdoing. Whistling42 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whistling, it was an innocent mistake. You have to understand, that for better or worse, the vast vast majority of people on Wikipedia who bristle when referred to as "he" are women who are sick of everybody assuming that everyone online is male. When Skoojal referred to you as "he" and got bit for it, he assumed he had guessed the wrong binary choice. And you know what? There was like a 99.9% chance he was right.

Moni3 said something really interesting yesterday: "If you deny [people] the opportunity to get to know you because you focus on their use of pronouns, an unfortunately low number of people will get the pleasure of learning why it's so important to you." This is very good advice, and believe it or not, talking to you has given me a lot of food for thought (more on that in a second).

In Skoojal's case, he made an assumption that proved to be false, but was not in any way malicious. If you focus on his mistake, and obsess about correcting it in the past comment on the talk page, and label it "sexual harassment," you are never going to properly communicate to Skoojal what your feelings are in this matter.

In my case, when you initially rejected my suggestion of using "he or she," I initially thought your were batshit crazy. No offense intended, and of course I no longer think that... Let me try and explain:

You see, I consider myself a reasonably open-minded person, and I am comfortable with the idea of fluid gender identification, i.e. a person who does not strongly identify with either (standard) gender. For instance, a close friend of mine at one point had a transgender partner that did not strongly identify with either male or female.

However, this person (and in every situation I had heard of until yesterday) identified equally with both standard genders. It is a new one on me to meet someone who identifies with neither standard gender. So, without having knowledge of that concept to consider, the idea of "he or she" being unacceptable just seemed crazy -- that is, until you explained the reason. (For the record, I had heard of genderqueer, but my impression was that most people who identify that way either find both "he" and "she" acceptable, or else they alternate between the two)

I now understand why you feel that way, and I am glad I took the time to understand where you were coming from a little better. I had always lamented the lack of a standard gender-neutral pronoun in standard English, but more because the "he or she/him or her" constructs can be awkward and pretentious. It had never occurred to me that even "he or she" might be problematic for some people.

Anyway, I almost didn't learn any of this, because you made your demands in such an unwavering and aggressive manner that I nearly dismissed you as either a troll or a crazy person. I see now that you aren't either of these things -- but making yourself a "pronoun martyr" is not the best way to get through to people. Trust me.

Here is what I think you should do: Create a sub-page off your user page (e.g. User:Whistling42/Please do not use gendered pronouns when referring to me) and explain calmly that you do not appreciate being labeled with either one, so even a construct such as "he or she" is not your preferred manner of being addressed. Suggest and link to the "singular they" and the various neologisms, and kindly ask people to refer to you either in one of those ways, or without using pronouns at all (you might suggest that people use "W" to avoid having to type "Whistling42" every single time, if that is amenable to you).

Then, when someone uses a gendered pronoun, in your reply just say as an aside, "Oh, by the way, if it is alright with you I would prefer if people would not use gendered pronouns when referring to me. You can find more info here." If you approach it this way, I think you will be surprised how many people are amenable to your request. (Probably a lot more people than would be amenable to it as a demand!)

I really am not trying to hurt your feelings, and I feel pretty bad for the anguish this apparently causes you. I am trying to do what I can to be sensitive and helpful. I hope we can work this out. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whistling42, if you don't want me to call you he or she or he or she in future, I won't. I am never going to agree to your editing my past comments, which do not meet most people's definition of incivility. I think your comment that, 'The action I took is protected; the action you took is prohibited' shows a misunderstanding of the issue. The conversion therapy talk page was protected to stop both of us edit warring, not to protect your modification of my comments. So kindly drop this ridiculous issue. Skoojal (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to offer a compromise. If the conversion therapy talk page is unprotected, I will first undo your changes to my comments, and then strike through the word 'she' as applied to you. In future, I won't refer to you with gendered pronouns, and you will not edit my comments. This is the only offer I am going to make (and please note that the striking through of 'she' is acceptable only if it is left to me to do it, any changes made by you will be reverted). Placing your own comments in the middle of my comments is completely unacceptable. Skoojal (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have the injured parties managed to work things out?

There are discussions about the actual article which are still pending. Many of them are unrelated to users' preferred personal pronouns. Rangergordon (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I have offered a compromise. Whistling42 will have to decide whether to accept it or not. Skoojal (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but it occurs to me that a sincere apology for the offense (which we all know was unintentional!) might help smooth things out. Rangergordon (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I said that what happened was a misunderstanding. That is all that should need to be said. Skoojal (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronouns, incivility, and non-gender-normative individuals

Whistling42, I would first of all like to acknowledge my full support of queer persons and their full integration into society in cases where they do seek such integration, and my desire to promote society's tolerance and respect of queer persons in cases where they do not seek societal integration. (I actually find the latter scenario to be preferable in general, since I feel society benefits from the existence of individuals who confront and challenge its established categories. However, I also feel compassion for those who seek refuge from unfair persecution.)

I also recognize that standard English usage of fully gendered personal pronouns tends to reinforce established gender categories. As a professional writer/editor, I reject the use of the plural pronoun "they" in reference to an individual. This is not because I have some prescriptivist grammatical hangup, but because, if this usage were standardized, the pronoun would actually lose its original ability to inform the reader or listener of the singularity or nonsingularity of its subject. It would simply become a makeshift placeholder for that which is really needed: a gender-neutral pronoun.

I'm intrigued by neologisms such as the "ze/mer/zir" construct that somebody mentioned during this discussion. (In truth, I prefer the xe/xem/xyr construct, simply because any word beginning with the letter X looks cool, and its widespread adoption would be a boon to Scrabble players.)

Still, a particular individual's failure to adopt a nonstandard usage of "they"--or one of the proposed neologisms which, unfortunately, are still little-known--cannot always be construed as incivility. "Incivility" implies the intent to personally insult. And, like other well-known queer epithets (or, for instance, some that are used to target gays and lesbians), pronouns are only ever used in this way when the target's biological gender is determined (and most likely known), and only to insult a member of an established gender by referring to him or her as a member of the opposite established gender.

Society is, unfortunately, still so unaccustomed to interacting with non-gender-normative individuals that the intentional use of gender-specificity as an insult is unheard-of (or at least extremely rare) among nonqueers. I'm not defending ignorance, but I'm suggesting that the assumption of incivility may not always be accurate. Many people are unaware and even insensitive, but "incivility" implies a full intent to insult, which I don't think can exist without some degree of awareness.

And, even if an insult exists, taking offense to it is rarely the best reaction. Those who intend to insult are beneath your contempt, and those who insult you unintentionally may be signaling their readiness for a (gentle!) educational experience. Rangergordon (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Just a wee shout out for your good work on Conversion therapy and also for standing up for gender identity. It's difficult but there are a lot of people who respect and support you for it.

Conor (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

ManKind Project

Hello. I've joined the ManKind Project conversation as you requested. Awaiting your response... Rustylane (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of birth control methods

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of birth control methods. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of birth control methods. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)